Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'. This was admitted by one of the most respected holohoax scholars, Robert Jan Van Pelt, arguing that Birkenau should not be preserved, Pelt states

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . ."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

My daughter took 8th grade history last year, and her text had a page on the hoax, that contained two whoppers that were easily demonstrated, the 11 million figure for the total # of victims (Lipstadt revealed that the # was made up by Wiesenthal) and that the US liberated several 'death camps' (all the hoax death camps were in Poland and none were liberated by the US/Brits).

I emailed the published and told them of the errors. They took the matter under consideration. They changed the text and "We have updated our online text and will update the print the next time we go to press."

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

Ah but Saggy you are lying again - and very ineptly

Here is what he actually said:

Quote:

So you had this very weird landscape – and you still have that – where you get these small, primitive brick chimneys rising three metres out of the ground. They don't have any other bracing and if you have a storm they blow over. But of course the chimneys themselves – altogether there are hundreds of them – create a very powerful symbolic landscape because we associate Birkenau with the chimneys of the crematoria. Those crematoria aren't there anymore, they were blown up by the Germans and one of them was blown up by the prisoners in 1944. So because there are only these ruins of the crematoria and because people expect to see chimneys in some way, that field of small chimneys that are the leftovers of the barracks creates a kind of landscape that people in some way associate with the killing and the burning of the bodies of the victims.

By allowing nature to take over the site, do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust?
You might be interested in

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

My daughter took 8th grade history last year, and her text had a page on the hoax, that contained two whoppers that were easily demonstrated, the 11 million figure for the total # of victims (Lipstadt revealed that the # was made up by Wiesenthal) and that the US liberated several 'death camps' (all the hoax death camps were in Poland and none were liberated by the US/Brits).

I emailed the published and told them of the errors. They took the matter under consideration. They changed the text and "We have updated our online text and will update the print the next time we go to press."

Minor errors in text books are to be expected, on the second item, changing the term to concentration camp is easy. You already brought this up before by the way. Again it has no affect on the reality of German war crimes and genocide.

Saggy is now dodging questions about what his attempted insults mean; which post he referred to as "in your face preposterous lies"; how a video by David Cole made decades ago proves that members of this forum are "hasbara"; and about Polish and German testimony on early Krema 1 and other gassings. Presumably because, er, hasbara!

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'. This was admitted by one of the most respected holohoax scholars, Robert Jan Van Pelt, arguing that Birkenau should not be preserved, Pelt states

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . ."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

Minor errors in text books are to be expected, on the second item, changing the term to concentration camp is easy. You already brought this up before by the way. Again it has no affect on the reality of German war crimes and genocide.

What Saggy has described is routine for textbook publishers, something they do day in and day out, because their materials often contain many errors, statements open to different interpretations, debatable use of terminology, statements which parents and others just plain object to.

If Saggy found just two errors in his daughter's book, good for that publisher: textbook publishers usually don't have a very good record on mistakes in their materials.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

I quoted the article, so, take it up with whoever implemented the cut-and-paste operation on my computer.

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

I quoted the article, so, take it up with whoever implemented the cut-and-paste operation on my computer.

Pelt's book, The Case for Auschwitz, supported by Dwork & Pelt's book Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present, details the evidence which Pelt uses to prove mass murder of Jews in Auschwitz and will make clear how dishonest are deniers when they cherrypick this quotation out of the newspaper article. See also The Pelt Report here.

Anyone who can read Pelt's Irving trial report or his books and still think that Pelt's a good person to cite to claim lack of evidence for Auschwitz has powers of imagination I cannot personally fathom.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

For those who are interested in the context for Saggy's correction of his daughter's textbook on "the 11 million figure for the total # of victims" (5 million of them non-Jews), it's not as simple as Saggy wants readers to believe; here is the first part of HC's discussion of Wiesenthal's estimate and issues involved - defining "victims" and "perpetrators":

Quote:

Now, how many non-Jews actually died at the hands of the “Nazi killing apparatus”, as defined above? While a more or less exact number is difficult if not impossible to establish, the order of magnitude demonstrably exceeds the five million “invented” by Simon Wiesenthal.

In part two, a country by country tabulation of victims, according to the definitions proposed in part one, is given. The conclusion is that Wiesenthal's made-up estimate of non-Jewish victims fell short by over 2 million:

Quote:

According to the above estimates (rounded up or down to the nearest thousand), the total number of non-Jews who perished through criminal violence by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II, i.e. of non-Jews who died at the hands of the Nazi “killing apparatus” as defined in Part 1 of this article, is the following:

Even the lowest of these totals (7,131,000) exceeds by far not only the 5 million non-Jewish victims “invented” by Simon Wiesenthal but also the highest estimates (around 6 million) of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazi “killing apparatus”. If we consider Nick Terry’s minimum estimate of ca. 5,364,000 Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, the minimum total of people who died at the hands of the Nazi “killing apparatus” would be 5,364,000 + 7,131,000 = 12,495,000, thereof 43 % Jews and 57 % non-Jews.

I am guessing, first, that Saggy didn't request the textbook publisher to increase its stated 5 million non-Jewish victims to the more accurate estimate of over 7 million and, second, that Saggy never even attempted to work any of this out.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

My daughter took 8th grade history last year, and her text had a page on the hoax, that contained two whoppers that were easily demonstrated, the 11 million figure for the total # of victims (Lipstadt revealed that the # was made up by Wiesenthal)

The number is probably larger, depending on the definition you want to use. It's unfortunate that Wiesenthal felt the need to be inclusive, to make it less about the Jewish victims and more about including all of the victims of Nazi aggression.

Quote:

and that the US liberated several 'death camps' (all the hoax death camps were in Poland and none were liberated by the US/Brits).

That also depends on the definition you want to use. A better term for the Polish camps is "extermination camps," all of the concentration camps were "death camps" to a degree. I often mix them up myself.

Quote:

I emailed the published and told them of the errors. They took the matter under consideration. They changed the text and "We have updated our online text and will update the print the next time we go to press."

There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'...

Really, Saggy? How about the official documents of the SS and Police Supreme Court in Munich dealing with the case against SS-Untersturmführer Max Täubner, dated the 24th of May, 1943. He stood accused of not only taking part in "actions" against Jews (in Alexandriya, Ukraine) with a "special cruelty" but also taking unauthorized photographs of the killings and then taking the negatives back to Germany to have them developed and showed the pictures to his wife and friends. This was considered to be a grave risk to the Sercurity of the Reich. Here is an excerpt from the verdict of the SS and Police Supreme Court in Munich:

Quote:

1. The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against
the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the
Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should
have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of
Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should
be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take
part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews
was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let
himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which
are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot
be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation
for the pain that the Jews have caused the German people. It is not
the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary
extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the
conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The
accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that
they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde...

2. By taking photographs of the incidents or having photographs
taken, by having these developed in photographic shops and showing
them to his wife and friends, the accused is guilty of disobedience.
Such pictures could pose the gravest risks to the security of the
Reich if they fell into the wrong hands...

Dismissal of the case against the remaining parties, 1 June 1943

The following has been established on the basis of the main trial
of SS-Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner...
The following men were party to the punishable acts committed or
ordered by SS-Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner:

1. SS-Unterscharfuehrer Walter Muller particularly stood out during
the shootings of Jews with the brutality with which he tore small
Jewish children from their mothers. He held these children in
front of him with his left hand and then, with his right hand,
shot them with a pistol.

.
. [three more SS-personnel accused]
.

Allowances have been made for the fact that the accused were, without
exception, acting on the orders of and under the responsibility
of Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner. In this respect, their own
culpability may be described as slight...

The Court documents also included testimony from witnesses, namely other SS officers. Here's the testimony of SS-Mann Ernst Göbel:

Quote:

“The victims were shot by the firing-squad with carbines, mostly by shots in the back of the head, from a distance of one metre on my command. Before every salvo Taubner gave me the order – ‘Get set, fire!’ I just relayed Taubner’s command ‘Aim! Fire!’ to the members of the firing squad, and then there was a crack of gunfire. Meanwhile Rottenfuhrer Abraham shot the children with a pistol. There were about five of them. These were children whom I would think were aged between two and six years. The way Abraham killed the children was brutal. He got hold of some of the children by the hair, lifted them up from the ground, shot them through the back of their heads and then threw them into the grave. After a while I just could not watch this anymore and told him to stop. What I meant was he should not lift the children up by the hair, he should kill them in a more decent way.”

On the other hand, there are shiploads of physical evidence of the Holocaust, while there is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever that anyone made the whole thing up.

So far, you have spectacularly failed to bring a single shred of evidence to the table that backs up any part of your absurd claims

CLUES

► Calling people liars is not evidence
► Highlighting minor discrepancies is not evidence
► Making unsupported assertions that documents have been forged is not evidence.
► Your failure to understand the difference between a Polish Catholic and a German Jew is not evidence.

But I'll tell you what is, or would be, evidence...

► documentation showing the transportation of thousands of Dutch Jews who were taken to Auschwitz and then onward to your claimed transit camps?
► proof that any of the millions of Jews of the "Yiddishland" who disappeared between 1939 and 1945 without leaving a trace, were alive and well after the war.

The problem is that you won't address any of these real issues because you can't.

__________________► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'. This was admitted by one of the most respected holohoax scholars, Robert Jan Van Pelt, arguing that Birkenau should not be preserved, Pelt states

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . ."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

Physical evidence I gassed my dog, or that the US gassed the Japanese in camps in CA .....

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

It appears that someone is getting frantic at his inability to muster replies for what is posted in this thread and his abject failure to deal with sources and arguments and interpretations of evidence.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

Childish? Cans of Zyklon-B, a commercially insecticide available and used all over Europe, are often cited as evidence of the holohoax. You can watch the Cole vid for verification.

But, hey, if you have photos of any 'real', you know, real, evidence of the hoax, let's see it .....

I've heard there are some very incriminating piles of shoes to be seen ????

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

Read the thread Hank, from the Zisblatt post. Try to understand what you've read. See if that helps.

Here's who to look for ....

Along the way see ....

And the kindergarten teacher who told the truth ....

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

There's a famous saying amoung mathematicians, that is 'you can't prove anything to a rock', which I can't attribute. But, none the less, there it is.

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

There's a famous saying amoung mathematicians, that is 'you can't prove anything to a rock', which I can't attribute. But, none the less, there it is.

Indeed it is.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232Ezekiel 23:20

When Saggy writes that "All the 'eyewitnesses' are pathological and degenerate liars," he has a special definition of the word "all": for Saggy it means "a few that I've found and don't believe." Saggy has found - well, been handed by someone - also a few unreliable witnesses - memory shot after many years? - and a few outright imposters - in Saggy's world, these are "all the 'eyewitnesses." No other witnesses are to be considered . . .

By the same token, "pathological" and "degenerate" seem to refer to witnesses who mostly relate what the Germans did.

It's very odd, but that's what we have here.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

When Saggy writes that "All the 'eyewitnesses' are pathological and degenerate liars," he has a special definition of the word "all":

Each of the phony eyewitnesses I've discussed has been very heavily promoted by the hoax industry. I haven't even mentioned one of the most idiotic, and that's saying something, that being Elie Wiesel, and he was the first director of the USHMM and won a Nobel Peace Prize, if you can believe it.

But, rather than have a Hilter loving denier pick the phony eyewitnesses, let's let Steven Spielberg, with his collection of 50,000 testimonies, choose the best and most compelling .....

Hey, wait a minute, Spielberg has already done that, and he made an Academy Award winning mockumentary, oops, documentary movie about them titled 'The Last Days'.

To see his collection of degenerate idiots disassembled to their constituent idiocies, watch the vid by Eric Hunt,

__________________"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

Each of the phony eyewitnesses I've discussed has been very heavily promoted by the hoax industry. I haven't even mentioned one of the most idiotic, and that's saying something, that being Elie Wiesel, and he was the first director of the USHMM and won a Nobel Peace Prize, if you can believe it.

But, rather than have a Hilter loving denier pick the phony eyewitnesses, let's let Steven Spielberg, with his collection of 50,000 testimonies, choose the best and most compelling .....

Hey, wait a minute, Spielberg has already done that, and he made an Academy Award winning mockumentary, oops, documentary movie about them titled 'The Last Days'.

To see his collection of degenerate idiots disassembled to their constituent idiocies, watch the vid by Eric Hunt,

Each of the phony eyewitnesses I've discussed has been very heavily promoted by the hoax industry. I haven't even mentioned one of the most idiotic, and that's saying something, that being Elie Wiesel, and he was the first director of the USHMM and won a Nobel Peace Prize, if you can believe it.

But, rather than have a Hilter loving denier pick the phony eyewitnesses, let's let Steven Spielberg, with his collection of 50,000 testimonies, choose the best and most compelling .....

Hey, wait a minute, Spielberg has already done that, and he made an Academy Award winning mockumentary, oops, documentary movie about them titled 'The Last Days'.

To see his collection of degenerate idiots disassembled to their constituent idiocies, watch the vid by Eric Hunt,

Don't quibble D. When 'debating' with the hasbara the idiotic lies are endless.

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

Which members do you claim are hasbaras? What is your proof?

Originally Posted by HSienzant

So you have no evidence and no proof. Just your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Saggy

There's a famous saying amoung mathematicians, that is 'you can't prove anything to a rock', which I can't attribute. But, none the less, there it is.

Sorry, unless you're having a conversation with a rock (and why would you do that?) you haven't proven anything. To anyone. In fact, you haven't even tried. You cited your opinion, then alluded to me being a rock. Not the best of starts. Why not take a step back, consider what you claimed, marshall your evidence, and try to prove your claim?

. . . rather than have a Hilter loving denier pick the phony eyewitnesses, let's let Steven Spielberg, with his collection of 50,000 testimonies, choose the best and most compelling ....

No, let's stick to the witnesses whose testimony historians have used to reach their conclusions. And, since you claimed "all" witnesses lie, and are degenerate, pathological, etc, what's keeping you from discussing the witnesses we say are credible? Oh, they're credible and your game is up . . . got it.

Just because a witness was taped and included in Spielberg's collection doesn't mean the witness's testimony is useful for proving the Holocaust, or even accurate. Which I've explained to you - along with how an academic conference last year sponsored a visit to the archive for discussion of how to make use of and evaluate what's in it.

P.S. - By the way, you never answered the question I asked you here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=74. More dodging, eh? Come on, tell me, which are (a) pathological, (b) degenerate, (c) preposterous, (d) absurd, or (e) all of the above?
P.S.S. - Eric Hunt still repudiates his Holocaust denial.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

No, let's stick to the witnesses whose testimony historians have used to reach their conclusions. And, since you claimed "all" witnesses lie, and are degenerate, pathological, etc, what's keeping you from discussing the witnesses we say are credible? Oh, they're credible and your game is up . . . got it.

Just because a witness was taped and included in Spielberg's collection doesn't mean the witness's testimony is useful for proving the Holocaust, or even accurate. Which I've explained to you - along with how an academic conference last year sponsored a visit to the archive for discussion of how to make use of and evaluate what's in it.

P.S. - By the way, you never answered the question I asked you here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=74. More dodging, eh? Come on, tell me, which are (a) pathological, (b) degenerate, (c) preposterous, (d) absurd, or (e) all of the above?
P.S.S. - Eric Hunt still repudiates his Holocaust denial.

Question: about how many Germans, who were loyal to the Hitlerite regime until it collapsed, gave testimony or left written records confirming genocide against the people of Europe?

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232Ezekiel 23:20

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.